30.05.2003: AVUT filed a Criminal Misc. Petition inthe Delhi High Court against the trial court order dt 29.04.2003 for cancellation of bail with regards to tamepring of evidence against Sushil Ansal,Gopal Ansal and H S Panwar under section 482 r/w section 439 (2) Cr PC. The details of the documents missing from the court records are as follows:

1. Cheque no.955725 dt. 26.06.1995 for Rs 50 Lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank signed by Sushil Ansal in his favour.

3. File containing minutes of MD’s Conference held on 27.02.1997, 02.04.1997,01.05.1997 & 07.05.1997 with regards to management of Uphaar Cinema held under the chairmanship of Gopal Ansal as Managing Director(API).

07.03.2006: AVUT files a Crl. Misc. Application in Crl. Misc(Main Petition) No. 2380/2003 in the Hon’ble High Court Delhi under section 482 of the code of criminal Procedure praying for directions for registration of a criminal case against offenders for tampering with documents in the court custody. 05.05.2006: The Hon’ble High Court passed following order:

“The act of removal or tampering with the judicial records are very serious and have large ramification on the administration of justice. Such like episodes cannot be brushed aside lightly. Therefore this court feels that there is crying need for instituting an enquiry/investigation into the whole episode so that the truth is unearthed and all those who are directly or indirectly responsible for committing the said offence(s) are brought to book and punished in accordance with law.”

“Delhi Police is called upon to register a case under appropriate provision of law in regard to the incident of removal/tampering with/ mutilation of the documents from the judicial records of the trial court. After the registration of the FIR, investigation shall be entrusted to an officer not below the rank of ACP who will conduct the investigation expeditiously and endeavor to conclude the same within a period three months from the date of this order. A status report shall be filed by the investigating agency before the next date of hearing.”

17.05.2006: An FIR is lodged by Delhi Police under Sec. 109/193/201/218/409/ 120B.

04.08.2006: Status report filed by EOW Delhi Police.

06.10.2006: First supplementary status report was filed by EOW giving the details of investigations undertaken with regards to:

Property acquired by the suspect Dinesh Chandra Sharma during 2001-2004.

23.12.2006: EOW moved an application in front of sessions Judge and the bail was cancelled .The IO of the case moved an affidavit as under.

During the course of custodial interrogation the accused reveled that accused was helped by one of the employees of the accused of the main case to get Home loan from ICICI Bank.

During the custodial interrogation the accused disclosed that one of the court employees of trial court got employed his relative in a school owned by the accused in the main case.

During the course of custodial interrogation the accused revealed that he was employed with A Plus Security in recommendation of one of the employees of the accused in the main case.

Jan 2007: Dinesh Chandra Sharma moved high court against the session’s court’s order but the High Court upheld the order of the Sessions Judge.

03.02.2007: Second Supplementary status report with regards to arrest of Dinesh Chandra Sharma, his confrontation with the other court staff and interrogation of suspected beneficiaries.

Two months time was sought to complete the investigation.

12.02.2007: Charge Sheet was filed by EOW in the court of ACMM Patiala House against Dinesh Chandra Sharma under section 109/193/201/218/409/120B IPC.

As per the charge sheet employment to Dinesh Chandra Sharma with A- Plus Security was arranged by one of the employees of Ansals, PP Batra .

The amount of Rs 15,000 was being paid by Star Estate management (sister concern of Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd) to A-Plus Security to be paid to Dinesh Chandra Sharma.

The charge sheet also revealed there is a possibility of Dinesh Chandra Sharma tampering with records at the instance of PP Batra acting in the interest of his employer Sushil & Gopal Ansal cannot be ruled out. This view also gets strengthened from the nature of some documents which are either missing or tampered with namely D-24 being the cheque signed by Sushil Ansal for Green Park Theatre Associated (P) Ltd and D-28 being the Minutes of MD’s conference which shows the direct control of Sushil & Gopal Ansal over Uphaar theatres.

13.04.2007: Third Supplementary status report of EOW. The report revealed that one of the co accused in the main Uphaar tragedy case H S Panwar was given employment with Sushant Estate (P) Ltd ,one of the sister concerns of Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.

23.05.2007: Supplementary charge Sheet filed by EOW in the ACMM Court Patiala House giving the details of the GEQD report also mentioned that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma had remained in the pay roll of A-Plus Security for eight months between November 2004 to June 2006.

16.07.2007: Fourth supplementary status report of EOW. The report revealed that H S Panwar a co accused in the main Uphaar tragedy case was Consultant for the New project of Sushant Lok Estate(P) Ltd. Payment was made through Cheque and the same was verified with Canara Bank Gurgaon.

Another two months was asked by EOW to complete the investigation.

18.09.2007:Fifth Supplementary status report of EOW. The report that the GEQD results have been and this context of GEQD results role of some Ex & present employees of Ansal Properties & Industries including HS Panwar a retired employee of DFS needs to be ascertained in order to unearth the entire gamut of conspiracy in the case.

Another four months time has been sought by EOW to complete the investigation

10.12.2007: 6th supplementary Status Report filed and asked for another 3 months time to complete the remaining investigation.

The Hon’ble Justice H R Malhotra after hearing both the parties passed the following directions:

“Despite directions of the court way back in May,2006,prosecution has not been able to complete investigation to show who is responsible for tampering with the records though good numbers of status reports have been filed.Ld Prosecutor appearing for the State states that secondary supplementary challan is likely to be filed within a month time. Sufficient time has since elapsed when the directions were issued, Ld Prosecutor shall now ensure that the matter is thoroughly investigated and supplementary challan is filed within that period.Renotify on 18th January 2008.”